Ask HN: comment downvote sniping
Has anyone ever experienced their comments being down-voted in a systematic fashion. I just checked my threads link to look to see if anyone has responded to any of my comments and responses to comments, when I noticed that a bunch of my post's have been down-voted for no apparent reason. They are not controversial posts at all, and most of them are just friendly advice. Has anyone else had this happen to them? I am not really worried about the karma but it's a pretty uncool thing to do to someone who tries hard to contribute to the forum, if it is indeed someone sniping comments of people that they disagree with. Just thought I would see if it is happening to other people because this is the second time I have noticed the pattern on my comments.
30 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 57.4 ms ] threadI'm just curious can you even down/up-vote old comments. Seems like they should lock after a few days to prevent this sort of behaviour.
Edit: According to brudgers comment downvoting does lock after a few days. He has a comment below on it.
I've noticed that replies appear to out lock after a longer time based on the chaos which sometimes appears on the "Ask" page when I've gone to a 1200 day old story.
Use the "edit" and "delete" links, respectively if you are concerned about the karma score of a particular comment.
It is bad form on HN to complain about downvotes.
But if a user downvotes a comment simply because they disagree, the site is robbed of their reasoning, while a user who upvotes a comment because they agree helps the site avoid needless duplication.
People tend to confuse these separate uses, and the symmetrical presentation in the UI reinforces the impression that the function is also symmetrical when it really isn't.
I.e. I may agree with the sentiment of a snarky post and upvote it and thereby damage the discourse by encouraging snark. Likewise, I may disagree with the premise of a post because it is absurd, and improve the discourse by downvoting it.
Furthermore, downvotes don't rob the site of a person's reasoning and posts frequently go from negative to positive territory.
In other words, karma is intended to behave like karma and largely does - people even worry about it.
Sure, no karma system can prevent people from deliberately rewarding bad behavior. But at least you won't be posting another redundant snarky post, which makes my point that using upvotes to agree helps the site.
[D]ownvotes don't rob the site of a person's reasoning
Sure they do. If I downvote a post I don't agree with instead of replying to it, no one else knows why I disagreed. I may have knowledge that would be of general interest to the community. Which makes my second point, that downvotes to disagree harm the site.
Using karma to promote quality posting and discourage negative behavior is symmetrical; using it to agree and disagree is not.
If you think that this is dick behavior, why do you care?
Why? Karma points are meaningless.
Suppose that you thought that a lot of BMW drivers were jerks. Would that affect your decision to buy a BMW?
Oh really? When was this time?
I ask because I saw it the first time I noticed points. Is that because I'm a newbie?
> I share the concern that with HN's growth we have to be aware of possible decline in quality and discuss ways to ensure the quality that HN provides.
And the relationship between HN quality and "inappropriate downvoting" is?
I only noticed it twice and that is the reason I asked about the issue. It may very well have happened before, that is what I was inquiring about, to understand if it is widespread.
And the relationship between HN quality and "inappropriate downvoting" is?
I think you are looking for something empirical which is not what I am basing my view on this subject on. Rather I hold some core values and that is what I am basing it on a value system as such it is internal to me. To me a widespread demographic of people who downvote out of malice compromises that value system, I would not want to participate in such a system. In saying that, I am not saying that HN has come to that.
And you're not going to tell us those "core values".
> To me a widespread demographic of people
What definition of "widespread" are you using? Would you say that an instance of malicious downvoting almost every day would qualify?
HN probably has 5-10k regulars, so let's go with 5k. 1% of 5k is 50. If 1% maliciously downvote 6 times a year, that's an incident almost every day.
I don't know about your "core values", but 1% doing something every other month doesn't strike me as widespread.
I apologize I thought I was clear on it, I would not want to participate in a forum with people that's conduct is below a conduce standard that I hold myself to, If I felt that such conduct had reached a threshold of my tolerance for such behavior.
I don't know about your "core values", but 1% doing something every other month doesn't strike me as widespread.
I don't know if my case is even a true case of it or if it is widespread hence me asking if other people have seen the pattern, therefore the exact value of when it would send me over the edge is unknown. I do know that if it where happening to me once a week or so, I would probably give serious consideration to not participating in posting comments at the least. And I would also tend to view contributed news as having the possibility of being posted by such people that have little regard for the quality of the site.
That's his point.
I addressed that with:
>> Suppose that you thought that a lot of BMW drivers were jerks. Would that affect your decision to buy a BMW?